I'm a cursed with riches. I could go over the general impression of McCain's speech among the pundits... but I already did. The consensus is that he did fine in laying out what he wants to do, but was not particularly compelling. Though most give him credit for the last minute of his speech. Damnit if that wasn't powerful.
This blog will not be endorsing a candidate this year. I won't do that not because I don't have my favorite but, rather, because both McCain and Obama have proven to me that they would be responsible presidents. I'm happy about the prospects of America for the first time in a long time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Here's my concern. Both candidates have good intentions and I agree with you that they have proven to be responsible. However, with the general impression of Obama as a candidate with limited experience at Washington and hardly any experience internationally, wouldn't it only add to the international perception that Americans are going to continue being hot-headed mavericks if we elect Obama? And if that were true, would it be a good or a bad outcome?
How precisely has Obama proved that he would be a responsible president?
I am not sure I entirely agree with the previous comment that it would lead to an international perception that Americans are 'hot-headed mavvericks' most of the international would welcome an Obama presidency. The expectation is that his presidency would be more ideologically in tune with the rest of the world (or at least Europe): sceptical of the Iraq war and more likely to endorse environmentalism and multilateralism. However choosing an inexperienced president like Obama would be disastrous for international agreements and for US world standing. It's an unpopular claim to make but I think there is a place for US unilateralism and in the fragile international climate it is the foreign policy powers (not the domestic capability) of the presidency that is going to be tested to the limit. Here Obama is untested.
"choosing an inexperienced president like Obama would be disastrous for international agreements and for US world standing"..."it is the foreign policy powers (not the domestic capability) of the presidency that is going to be tested to the limit. Here Obama is untested.
"
Which is why I say that electing Obama might be irresponsible. The international climate is already unpopular with our decision to go to war as we defied the UN's course of action. So further electing a president who is inexperienced with foreign politics would lead the international public to view American as mavericks: non-coforming and unwilling to bridge the gap.
It would certainly be irresponsible in international terms for the international climate and for US domestic interests but I doubt it would serve to make the US more unpopular. I have little doubt that an Obama presidency would be warmly received by the rest of the world precisely because it would weaken the international position of the US. It would be strategically disatrous. The international community wouldn't view the Americans as mavericks: non-conforming and un-willing to bridge the gap. It would be seen as a conciliating gesture but it would paradoxically be at the expense of a strong US bargaining position. The international community would be laughing. It would be seen as a choice of spin over substance.
What exactly has McCain done that makes him so much more experienced than Obama when dealing with foreign relations? Any person stepping in to office is going to be generally inexperienced in terms of what the office of the President deals with in the realm of foreign policy due to the fact that it is the Executive Branch in charge of most of these responsibilities. These are all legislatures.
I would think it would be more irresponsible of America to vote for a President (McCain) who is going to continue the same agenda Bush has carried out over the past 8 years. Our re-election of Bush 4 years ago is what really damaged our international relationships because it told the world we agreed with what he was doing abroad (when in fact we Americans know the reason he was reelected was for domestic social issues).
Also, going back to the fact we would be electing the VPs as well. Obama can certainly turn to Biden for council, as all Presidents do. But seriously, Palin...she will practically be our next President. That alone should scare people, but I do not know why they are actually celebrating this. If anyone should be knocked for their lack of experience it should be her, simply because she has little national experience...a little bit ago she was a mayor of a measly, undiverse city. Why does this not raise flags?
I'm glad that this has started a discussion up. I wanted to add a few comments (pot shots) on the posts.
Odin, you're too smart for your own good. The international community does and will continue to laud Obama because they agree with him ideologically. That and because they are only casual observers of the process they are more likely to throw support behind the attractive candidate instead of the substantive one. Your argument is applying logic that is probably 2 or 3 steps beyond what international opinion has the time or inclination to think about. Basically, you have to remember that people who don't live in the US don't care as much, thus are swayed by shallow appeal. Not surprising, I mean... what does the average American know about Canadian politics or British?
For similar reasons I'm not sure Anonymous' comments are quite right either. The choice of style over substance analysis is correct, it's the forecast of consequences with which I quibble. I think Obama would be successful over-seas precisely because of his style. Remembering that the international audience is facile, I believe that Obama will be given the benefit of the doubt even if he does screw up because they will like him. I'm willing to believe that perception will modify reality a bit more than you are I suspect. It's a deeply speculative argument but it's my gut feeling that an Obama presidency would be more loved in the international arena than McCain's even over time. Don't forget that Carter is still admired and Reagan is still hated in Europe.
Because the Europeans really aren't paying attention, their opinion on US politicians is mostly ideological and emotional rather than substantive. Obama can take advantage of this to accomplish things that would be closed for McCain. For that reason Obama would have more opportunities to promote US interests in Europe especially. Whether he's able to do it or not is another matter entirely.
I am not disputing that Obama’s style would be welcomed. Europe would be totally sold on his story but that does not make for good US foreign policy leadership. Since when is successful international bargaining and the securing of viable international deals solely an exercise in being liked? Europe may like Obama but be in no doubt part of that is because of his perceived weakness. Anti-Americanism still runs high. Europe wants to carve out a position to rival the US. With Obama they see the possibility of doing just that. An Obama presidency is perceived to come at the expense of US foreign policy strength.
I also take issue with your argument that “an Obama presidency would be more loved in the international arena than McCain's even over time. Don't forget that Carter is still admired and Reagan is still hated in Europe.”
1) Even if I were to accept this (I don’t because I think ‘over time’ Europe might reach a different conclusion) if it is at the expense of US strategic interests and world standing, (I may be a cynic but that would certainly make a US President ‘loved’ in Europe) it certainly wouldn’t make him the right choice
2) Actually Reagan is loved by many in Europe, especially by centre-right. The EU is trying to model many of its economic reforms on his example in the US. The ‘special relationship’ between the US and Britain was widely believed to be cemented with the friendship of Thatcher-Reagan.
3) Over time most of the world will define a successful presidency as one that has been effective at addressing the international problems and concerns of the day. McCain with his military career would I suggest be far more effective at dealing with international terrorism and the animosity of Russia.
4) What Europe loves and what it respects are too different things. It might well love Obama but Europe would respect McCain. To distort Machiavelli it might be best to be loved and respected but if one has to choose it is better to be respected than loved.
Something to note, and support the fact that McCain would not be respected in Europe, nor be effective in rallying American popularity in the G5....hehe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049446/Barack-Obama-beats-John-McCain-in-European-vote-US-election-2008.html
Hopefully, in any case, America can start to be seen as "force for good" in the World.
Post a Comment